Recessed lighting fixtures are typically pushed into a steel mounting frame that is situated on the topside of the ceiling which is most often made of gypsum board or acoustical tile. The most common way of retaining the reflector so that its flange is in contact with the bottom (exposed) side of the ceiling panel is by use of what is known in the lighting industry as “roto-clips”. An example of these is defined in U.S. Pat. No. 4,313,154 of Capostagno et al. where they are variously referred as “resilient reflector support members”, “spring retainer members”, and “mounting assemblies”. An earlier U.S. Pat. No. 4,039,822 of Chan describes inclined gripping teeth which permit removal of the reflector by rotation of the reflector in the direction of the downward incline thereby causing the reflector to be cammed downward. This feature is also used in the roto-clips.
The existing retaining means for lighting reflectors have several shortcomings. Although the possibility of more than two arms is suggested in U.S. Pat. No. 4,313,154 of Capostagno et al., roto-clips typically have two arms, a short arm and a longer arm. Either can be swung into a position of contact with the reflector, but only two positions are offered. Oriented with the longer arm inward (toward reflector), they may apply excessive pressure against the reflector; with the shorter arm inward, insufficient pressure may be applied. Additionally, the point of contact of the end of the roto-clip is typically ½″ above the topside of the mounting frame. While such elevation may grip reflectors having near vertical walls at their point of contact, reflectors that rapidly taper inward are susceptible to inferior grip or even loss of grip due to the low angle of presentation at the contact point. Roto-clips are typically riveted onto the mounting frame, a method permitting rotation but with substantial friction. However, the rivet mounting hole position dictates the pressure that either the long or short spring arm will exert against the reflector. Thus, unless there are multiple rivet holes allowing the roto-clip to be riveted nearer or farther away from the edge of the hole in the mounting frame, the design can only accommodate a slightly larger or smaller reflector than was originally intended. Note also that multiple rivet holes require experimentation and are prone to assembly errors. The time required to rivet the four roto-clips is another shortcoming; a supply of rivets and a riveting tool must also be at hand. Depending on the pressure exerted by the roto-clips, it can be difficult to remove the reflector. Because of the discrete projections of roto-clips, the reflector can only be mounted with a single level of eccentricity relative to the large hole in the mounting frame. By rotating two adjacent roto-clips with the longer leg extending inward, and the other two adjacent roto-clips with the shorter leg extending inward, a level of eccentricity is afforded, but possibly at the expense of appropriate retentive pressure on the reflector. Increased variability in offset positioning is desirable if there is a need to further offset the reflector to permit its flange to conceal larger blemishes in the ceiling panel adjacent to the hole that may have arisen while the hole was being cut.